Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967)

Ponente: HARLAN J.

Certiorari to the US CA for the 5th Circuit

Facts:

1st Case:  Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts

Saturday Evening Post published an article entitled “The Story of  a College Football Fix” which accused Wally Butts of conspiring to fix a football game between the University of Georgia and the University of Alabama, played in 1962.  Butts was then the athletic director of UG.

The article purported that George Burnett, an Atlanta insurance salesman, had accidentally overheard, because of electronic error, a telephone conversation between Butts and the head coach of the UA, Paul Bryant, which took place approximately one week prior to the game, wherein Butts  gave to the coach Georgia's plays, defensive patterns, “all the significant secrets Georgia's football team possessed."

Butts brought a diversity libel in the federal courts in Georgia seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Butts' contention was that the magazine had departed greatly from the standards of good investigation and reporting, and that this was especially reprehensible, amounting to reckless and wanton conduct, in light of the devastating nature of the article's assertions.

The jury returned a verdict for $60k in general damages and for $3M in punitive damages. The trial court reduced the total to $460k by remittitur. Soon thereafter, the SC handed down the decision in New York Times, and Curtis immediately brought it to the attention of the trial court by a motion for new trial.

The trial judge rejected Curtis' motion on two grounds:

• New York Times was inapplicable because Butts was not a public official.

• there was ample evidence from which a jury could have concluded that there was reckless disregard by defendant of whether the article was false or not.

CA affirmed the decision. Hence this petition.

-----------------

2nd Case: Associated Press v Walker

There was a news dispatch which gave an eyewitness account of events on the campus of the University of Mississippi on the night of September 30, 1962, when a massive riot erupted because of federal efforts to enforce a court decree ordering the enrollment of a Negro James Meredith.

The dispatch stated that Walker, who was present on the campus, had taken command of the violent crowd and had personally led a charge against federal marshals sent there to effectuate the court's decree and to assist in preserving order. It also described Walker as encouraging rioters to use violence and giving them technical advice on combating the effects of tear gas.

Walker initiated this libel action in the state courts of Texas, seeking a total of $2M in compensatory and punitive damages. Associated Press raised both the defense of truth and constitutional defenses.

A verdict of $500k compensatory damages and $300k punitive damages was returned. The trial judge, however, found that there was "no evidence to support the jury's answers that there was actual malice"and refused to enter the punitive award.

Both sides appealed, and the Texas Court of Civil Appeals affirmed both the award of compensatory damages and the striking of punitive damages.

It stated without elaboration that New York Times was inapplicable.

As to the punitive damage award, the plea for reinstatement was refused because, "in view of all the surrounding circumstances, the rapid and confused occurrence of events on the occasion in question, and in the light of all the evidence, we hold that appellee failed to prove malice . ."

Hence this petition.

-------------------------------------------------------

1 of 2: WON the New York Times rule could be applied to both cases where the complainants are not exactly public officials.

Petitioners argue that public interest is involved in both cases, which justifies constitutional protection of discussion of persons involved in it equivalent to the protection afforded discussion of public officials.

Meanwhile, Respondents argue that:

• recognize society's "pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation," and the "important social values which underlie the law of defamation."

• the publicity in these instances was not directed at employees of government,

• these cases cannot be analogized to seditious libel prosecutions

• the rule that permits satisfaction of the deep-seated need for vindication of honor is not a mere historic relic, but promotes the law's civilizing function of providing an acceptable substitute for violence in the settlement of disputes

Court held:that the New York Times rule can be applied if they qualify as public officials and if the standard for news gathering, investigation, and publication was followed.

(1) The guarantees of freedom of speech and press were not designed to prevent "the censorship of the press merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free and general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential. . . ."

Our touchstones are that acceptable limitations must neither affect "the impartial distribution of news" and ideas, nor because of their history or impact constitute a special burden on the press, nor deprive our free society of the stimulating benefit of varied ideas because their purveyors fear physical or economic retribution solely because of what they choose to think and publish.

The history of libel law leaves little doubt that it originated in soil entirely different from that which nurtured these constitutional values. Early libel was primarily a criminal remedy, the function of which was to make punishable any writing which tended to bring into disrepute the state, established religion, or any individual likely to be provoked to a breach of the peace because of the words.

It is the conduct element, therefore, on which we must principally focus if we are successfully to resolve the antithesis between civil libel actions and the freedom of speech and press. Impositions based on misconduct can be neutral with respect to content of the speech involved, free of historical taint, and adjusted to strike a fair balance between the interests of the community in free circulation of information and those of individuals in seeking recompense for harm done by the circulation of defamatory falsehood.

(2)  Present actions cannot be analogized to prosecutions for seditious libel. Neither plaintiff has any position in government which would permit a recovery by him to be viewed as a vindication of governmental policy. Neither was entitled to a special privilege protecting his utterances against accountability in libel.

Therefore, the rules of liability with respect to compensation of persons injured by the improper performance of a legitimate activity by another shall govern. Under these rules, a departure from the kind of care society may expect from a reasonable man performing such activity leaves the actor open to a judicial shifting of loss.

(3) Both Butts and Walker commanded a substantial amount of independent public interest at the time of the publications; and as such would have been labeled "public figures" under ordinary tort rules.

Both commanded sufficient continuing public interest and had sufficient access to the means of counterargument to be able "to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies" of the defamatory statements.

(4) Holding:  A "public figure" who is not a public official may also recover damages for a defamatory falsehood whose substance makes substantial danger to reputation apparent, on a showing of highly unreasonable conduct constituting an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.

(5) The question whether the evidence and findings in the 2 cases meet that standard. The standard was satisfied in Butts, and but not satisfied in Walker.

The standard was satisfied in Butts:

• The Saturday Evening Post knew that Burnett had been placed on probation in connection with bad check charges, but proceeded to publish the story on the basis of his affidavit, without substantial independent support.

• Burnett's notes were not even viewed by any of the magazine's personnel prior to publication.

• John Carmichael, who was supposed to have been with Burnett when the phone call was overheard, was not interviewed.

• No attempt was made to screen the films of the game to see if Burnett's information was accurate, and no attempt was made to find out whether Alabama had adjusted its plans after the alleged divulgence of information.

• The Post writer assigned to the story was not a football expert, and no attempt was made to check the story with someone knowledgeable in the sport.

The standard not satisfied  in Walker.

• the dispatch in Walker was news which required immediate dissemination.

• The Associated Press received the information from a correspondent who was present at the scene of the events and gave every indication of being trustworthy and competent.

• His dispatches in this instance, with one minor exception, were internally consistent, and would not have seemed unreasonable to one familiar with General Walker's prior publicized statements on the underlying controversy. Considering the necessity for rapid dissemination, nothing in this series of events gives the slightest hint of a severe departure from accepted publishing standards.

2 of 2: WON the damages given to Butt can be subjected to an assessment for punitive damages by the juries.

Held: Yes

The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and press is adequately served by judicial control over excessive jury verdicts, manifested by a trial court's remittitur and by the general rule that a verdict based on jury prejudice cannot be sustained even when punitive damages are warranted.

Holding:  Misconduct sufficient to justify the award of compensatory damages also justifies the imposition of a punitive award, subject to the limitation that such award is not demonstrated to be founded on the mere prejudice of the jury. The case on punitive damages was put to the jury under instructions which satisfied the constitutional test we would apply in cases of this kind, and the evidence amply supported the jury's findings.

DECISION: The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Curtis is affirmed.

The judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals in AP v Walker is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinions that have been filed herein.